Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Apr 2006 08:33:59 -0700
Mike wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Mike wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Newton's second law is F=ma, and in a rotating frame that
simply does not hold -- one must _invent_ fictitious "forces" (called
"centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force") in order to "save" the law.
These forces are not ficticious at all. This name is a historical
misnomer.
Applying the word "force" to them is the misnomer, not the word
"fictitious".
Are you trying to deny the real existence of centrifugla
forces that make centrifuges work and coriolis forces who are
responsible for the rotation of the water when it goes down the drain?
But they don't. <shrug>
Centrifuges work because the material in them tries to move in a
straight line (relative to the inertial frame of the centrifuge's
center), but the centripetal force of the centrifuge outer wall compels
the material to deviate from that straight line and move in a circle.
The centripetal force ("center seeking") is real, and is what causes the
material to move in a circle.
Just because something is coordinate dependent it
does not mean it is not "real".
Sure it does! Arbitrary human choices of how to describe a real
phenomenon cannot possibly affect the phenomenon itself.
Calling the last two terms in my equation above "forces" does not make
them so. <shrug>
It seems that in order for you to support you false argument you will
go out of your way calling forces that everyone feels every day in a
car, in an amusement park, riding a bicycle, unreal.
You have _NEVER_ felt "centrifugal force". What you have felt is the
door of a car pushing sideways on you as the car turns a corner. Etc.
All of these "fictitious forces" have that character -- nobody _ever_
feels them (because your nerves sense differences, and these "forces"
are all proportional to mass and thus there is no difference for your
nerves to feel; what you feel is other forces which are _always_ in the
opposite direction: your chair pushes up, the car door pushes toward the
_inside_ of the curve, etc.).
Besides containing several innacuracies and basic physics errors, your
neurophysiologicallly based assertions to defend an absurd postion show
desperation.
I suggest to you getting a ride in one of those holocoasters. Sure, you
will feel getting pushed against the side of your cart. But when you
feel your lips and cheeks getting tweested you will understand the
power of the centrifugal force.
When you accelerate forward in your car, the little voodoo head hanging
from your rear-view mirror by a string swings backwards. Why does it do
that?
One person might say there is a force backwards on the voodoo head. Of
course, one is hard pressed to find the agent of such a backwards
force. What would be pushing backwards?
Another person might say that in order for the voodoo head to keep up
with the car, a force has to be applied to it to make it accelerate
forward. The only agent available for such a force is the string.
Unfortunately, a string can only pull along its length and so a
vertical string cannot possibly apply a horizontal force required for
horizontal acceleration. Now, if the string were to be inclined, so
that its length were partially vertical and partially horizontal...
Which explanation makes more sense?
PD
If you cannot take a ride for a reason, tie a stone at the end of a
string and swing it above your head carefully. The force on your hand
is the centrifugal force. Without it, no centripetal force on the stone
so it can rotate would be possible. If you do not feel it on your hand,
go have a nerve check up before you attempt to base a physical theory
on what you feel or not. Honestly...
Mike
The fact that many people describe these things in an invalid way does
not make it valid. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Mike
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- References:
- About absolute reference frame......
- From: socratus
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Koobee Wublee
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Mike
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Mike
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: About absolute reference frame......
- From: Mike
- About absolute reference frame......
- Prev by Date: Re: If two bulbs can attract then how about two sound sources??
- Next by Date: Re: momentan relativity, wrong even more
- Previous by thread: Re: About absolute reference frame......
- Next by thread: Re: About absolute reference frame......
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|